AMBASSADORS GROUP: Wants Securities Suit in Washington Dismissed----------------------------------------------------------------Ambassadors Group, Inc., has filed a motion to dismiss a securities class action alleging violations of federal securities laws, according to the company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On July 14, 2009, a securities class action was filed against the company and certain of its executive officers on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the company's Common Stock between Feb. 8, 2007 and Oct. 23, 2007.

The class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington by plaintiff Plumbers Union Local No. 12 Pension Fund.

On Oct. 22, 2009, the Court appointed International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 351 as lead plaintiff.

On Nov. 23, 2009, lead plaintiff IBEW 351 filed a motion to withdraw as lead plaintiff and sought appointment of PlumbersUnion as substitute lead plaintiff. On Jan. 7, 2010, a hearing was held and the Court appointed Plumbers Union as lead plaintiff.

The Plumbers Union filed an amended complaint on Jan. 11, 2010. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making untrue statements of material fact and/or omitting to state material facts, thereby artificially inflating the price of the company's Common Stock.

On March 11, 2010, the company, and certain of its executive officers, filed a motion to dismiss the Plumbers Union's amended complaint. The company anticipates the Court will issue a ruling on the motion to dismiss after May 20, 2010.

Ambassadors Group, Inc. -- http://ambassadorsgroup.com-- is a socially conscious, education company located in Spokane,Washington. Ambassadors Group is the parent company of Ambassador Programs, Inc., World Adventures Unlimited, Inc. andBook Rags, Inc., an educational research website. The company also oversees the Washington School of World Studies, anaccredited travel study and distance learning school.

At the time of the 2004-05 investigation of the insurance industry by the Attorney General of New York and other regulators, purported classes of clients filed civil litigation against Aon and other companies under a variety of legal theories, including state tort, contract, fiduciary duty, antitrust and statutory theories and federal antitrust and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act theories.

The federal actions were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, and a state court collective action was filed in California. In the New Jersey actions, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' federal antitrust and RICO claims in separate orders in August and October 2007, respectively.

Plaintiffs have appealed these dismissals.

No further updates were reported in the company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Aon Corporation -- http://www.aon.com/-- is the leading global provider of risk management services, insurance and reinsurance brokerage, and human capital consulting. Through its more than 36,000 colleagues worldwide, Aon readily delivers distinctive client value via innovative and effective risk management and workforce productivity solutions. Aon's industry-leading global resources and technical expertise are delivered locally through more than 500 offices in more than 120 countries.

AON CORP: Court Okays $30 Million Securities Suit Settlement------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois gave its final approval to the $30 million settlement resolving a securities suit against Aon Corporation, according to the company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

At the time of the 2004-05 investigation of the insurance industry by the Attorney General of New York, putative classes filed actions against Aon in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under the federal securities laws.

Plaintiffs in the federal securities class action originally submitted purported expert reports estimating a range of alleged damages of $353 million to $490 million. To protect against the uncertain outcome of litigation and to contain exposure to the company, Aon settled the securities suit for $30 million in 2009.

On Nov. 24, 2009, the Court entered a final order approving the securities settlement and dismissing the securities suit.

Aon Corporation -- http://www.aon.com/-- is the leading global provider of risk management services, insurance and reinsurance brokerage, and human capital consulting. Through its more than 36,000 colleagues worldwide, Aon readily delivers distinctive client value via innovative and effective risk management and workforce productivity solutions. Aon's industry-leading global resources and technical expertise are delivered locally through more than 500 offices in more than 120 countries.

AON CORP: Settles ERISA-Violations Related Suit for $1.8 Million----------------------------------------------------------------Aon Corporation is awaiting approval from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois of a settlement resolving a suit alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act for $1.8 million, according to the company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

At the time of the 2004-05 investigation of the insurance industry by the Attorney General of New York, putative classes filed actions against Aon in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under ERISA.

Plaintiffs in the ERISA class actions originally submitted revised purported expert reports estimating a range of alleged damages of $74 million to $349 million. To protect against the uncertain outcome of litigation and to contain exposure to the company, Aon reached an agreement in principle to settle the ERISA suit for $1.8 million.

The proposed ERISA settlement is subject to notice and court approval.

Aon Corporation -- http://www.aon.com/-- is the leading global provider of risk management services, insurance and reinsurance brokerage, and human capital consulting. Through its more than 36,000 colleagues worldwide, Aon readily delivers distinctive client value via innovative and effective risk management and workforce productivity solutions. Aon's industry-leading global resources and technical expertise are delivered locally through more than 500 offices in more than 120 countries.

AON CORP: Resource Life Continues to Defend "Buckner" Suit----------------------------------------------------------A putative class action captioned Buckner v. Resource Life remains pending in state court in Columbus, Georgia, against Resource Life Insurance Company, according to Aon Corporation's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Resource Life is a former subsidiary of Aon Corp.

The complaint alleges that Resource Life, which wrote policies insuring repayment of auto loans, was obligated to identify and return unearned premiums to policyholders whose loans terminated before the end of their scheduled terms. In connection with the sale of Resource Life in 2006, Aon agreed to indemnify Resource Life's buyer in certain respects relating to this action.

In October 2009, the court certified a nationwide class of policyholders whose loans terminated before the end of their scheduled terms and who Resource Life cannot prove received a refund of unearned premium. Resource Life has taken an appeal from that decision, which is set for argument on June 30, 2010.

Also in October 2009, Aon filed a lawsuit in Illinois state court seeking a declaratory judgment with respect to the rights and obligations of Aon and Resource Life under the indemnity agreement.

Aon Corporation -- http://www.aon.com/-- is the leading global provider of risk management services, insurance and reinsurance brokerage, and human capital consulting. Through its more than 36,000 colleagues worldwide, Aon readily delivers distinctive client value via innovative and effective risk management and workforce productivity solutions. Aon's industry-leading global resources and technical expertise are delivered locally through more than 500 offices in more than 120 countries.

ASSOCIATED ESTATES: Ohio Appeals Court Affirms Ruling-----------------------------------------------------The Ohio Court of Appeals for the 10th District has affirmed the ruling of the Franklin County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas granting summary judgment in favor of Associated Estates Realty Corporation, according to the company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On or about April 14, 2002, Melanie and Kyle Kopp commenced an action against the company in the Franklin County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas seeking undetermined damages, injunctive relief and class action certification. This case arose out of the company's Suredeposit program. This program allowed cash short prospective residents to purchase a bond in lieu of paying a security deposit. The bond serves as a fund to pay those resident obligations that would otherwise have been funded by the security deposit.

Plaintiffs allege that the nonrefundable premium paid for the bond is a disguised form of security deposit, which is otherwise required to be refundable in accordance with Ohio's Landlord-Tenant Act. Plaintiffs further allege that certain pet deposits and other nonrefundable deposits required by the company are similarly security deposits that must be refundable in accordance with Ohio's Landlord-Tenant Act.

On or about Jan. 15, 2004, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. The company subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment.

On or about Sept. 3, 2008, the court granted the company's motion for summary judgment thereby dismissing all Plaintiff claims against the company.

Plaintiff subsequently appealed the court's ruling to the Ohio Court of Appeals for the 10th District, which recently affirmed the trial court's decision granting summary judgment in the company's favor.

Associated Estates Realty Corporation -- http://www.AssociatedEstates.com/-- is a real estate investment trust and is a member of the Russell 2000. The company is headquartered in Richmond Heights, Ohio. Associated Estates' portfolio consists of 49 properties containing 12,366 units located in eight states.

BMW OF NORTH: Sued for Concealing Defect in Design of Fuel Pumps----------------------------------------------------------------Tim Nguyen, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. BMW of North America, LLC, et al., Case No. 10-cv-02257 (N.D. Calif. May 25, 2010), asserts breach of express warranty, violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and unfair business practices in violation of the Calif. Bus. & Professions Code. Mr. Nguyen accuses the BMW automobile distributor of concealing a defect in the design of its fuel pumps installed in all its BMW vehicles, while continuing to sell these vehicles to California residents, despite the potential risk that these vehicles pose to the public's safety. Mr. Nguyen says he brought his BMW for repair or replacement of the defective fuel pump, but the distributor refused to make the necessary repairs or replacement to his vehicle while still under warranty.

BP PLC: Courts Divided on Staying Gulf Oil Spill Lawsuits---------------------------------------------------------Tresa Baldas at The National Law Journal reports that two federal courts came down on opposite sides of the "to stay or not to stay" question last week in cases over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

On Tuesday, a federal judge in Mobile, Ala., denied a request by BP PLC, one of the defendants, to stay a lawsuit brought by a seafood processor, holding that a stay would be premature and that BP should answer the complaint now because it will have to at some point. BP is seeking to have federal lawsuits stayed in five of the Gulf states until a judicial panel decides whether to combine the more than 130 federal cases into a multidistrict proceeding.

The same day, a federal judge in New Orleans granted BP's motion to stay a lawsuit filed by a fishing charter company, concluding that BP and the other defendants could face undue hardships if the scores of lawsuits filed so far are allowed to proceed prior to a decision from the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

"[T]he defendants face the burden of litigation in multiple jurisdictions. More importantly, between the various lawyers and judges on the cases, there is a grave potential for conflicting discovery orders. This poses not only a hardship for the defendants, but mocks an efficient and orderly judicial system," wrote U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman in Cajun Offshore Charters LLC v. BP PLC, et al.

The ruling frustrated Joe Dunn of Wigington Rumley Dunn in San Antonio, one of the lawyers representing Cajun Offshore Charters. He learned about the ruling on Tuesday night, as he was about to board a plane for Louisiana to attend a Wednesday hearing on the matter. He received an e-mail from a colleague telling him the court had already granted BP's motion.

"I'm very disappointed that we didn't get to make our argument to the judge, and we're going to urge the court to reconsider," said Dunn, who felt the ruling contained "very strong language against the plaintiffs."

Dunn found the ruling by Chief U.S. District Judge William Steele of the Southern District of Alabama much more to his liking.

"Entering a stay at this juncture and under these circumstances would not rescue defendants from material hardship or the risk of inconsistent adjudications; after all, they must answer the complaint anyway," wrote Steele. "By all appearances, the only tangible effect of entering a stay at this time would be to allow defendants a three-month reprieve ... before being required to answer the allegations brought by plaintiff in the complaint. Such a protected delay appears both unnecessary and unwarranted."

CHARLES SCHWAB: Settlement Will Pay Hagens Berman $20 Million-------------------------------------------------------------Dan Levine at The Recorder reports that having forced Charles Schwab to the settlement table in an investor fraud suit, plaintiffs firm Hagens Berman will be compensated nicely.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup has given preliminary approval to two deals that would furnish $235 million to class members. Of that, Hagens Berman will reap about $20 million: 8 percent of the $200 million set aside for federal claims, and 11 percent of $35 million to resolve the state law claims.

Led by partners Steven Berman and Reed Kathrein, the plaintiffs successfully battled Schwab's outside counsel Morrison & Foerster over the investment company's so-called YieldPlus plan. Plaintiffs say Schwab violated securities laws by telling investors it would only put up to 25 percent of the assets in its YieldPlus fund in any one industry. But Schwab allegedly changed the rules midstream and concentrated more than 45 percent in mortgage-backed securities.

The Securities and Exchange Commission filed briefs supporting the plaintiffs, and the company quickly agreed to settle after Alsup recently issued a series of summary judgment rulings that went against them.

In court Tuesday, Berman said the settlements were the product of six sessions with various current and retired judicial officers. For the state claims, the plaintiffs estimated damages between $33 million to $52 million, while defendants put it between $5 million to $12 million.

Thus the $35 million figure is "at the very high end of possible recovery," Berman said. He declined to comment after the hearing about attorney fees.

For his part, Alsup was concerned with potential objectors, who could try to use the opt-out process in an attempt to delay the settlement and extract a premium. Alsup said he would be leery of such requests.

"I don't like hold-up artists. I will be very reluctant to give hold-up artists more money," he said.

Berman acknowledged the threat from outside objectors. Asked for his thoughts, Morrison & Foerster partner Darryl Rains said it was the plaintiffs' problem.

A hearing for final settlement approval is scheduled for September.

CNX GAS: Named as Defendant in 4 Suits Over CONSOL Tender Offer---------------------------------------------------------------CNX Gas Corporation has been named as a defendant in four putative class actions in connection with CONSOL Energy Inc.'s proposed tender offer to acquire all of the shares of the company's common stock that CONSOL Energy does not already own, according to the company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

CNX Gas is an 83.3% owned subsidiary of CONSOL Energy.

The cases are:

(1) Schurr v. CNX Gas and others (No. 2010-2333), filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County, Pennsylvania on March 29, 2010;

(3) Polen v. CNX Gas and others (No. 2010-2626), filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County, Pennsylvania on April 12, 2010; and

(4) Hurwitz v. CNX Gas and others (No. 5405), filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery on April 13, 2010.

The suits are brought by alleged shareholders of CNX Gas challenging the proposed tender offer by CONSOL Energy. The suits also name CONSOL Energy and certain officers and directors of CONSOL Energy and CNX Gas as defendants.

All four actions generally allege that CNX Gas has breached and/or has aided and abetted in the breach of fiduciary duties purportedly owed to CNX Gas's public shareholders.

Among other things, the actions seek a permanent injunction against or rescission of the proposed tender offer, damages, and attorneys' fees and expenses.

CNX Gas Corporation -- http://www.cnxgas.com/-- is the leading gas producer in the Appalachian Basin, when measured by revenue, net income, and safety.

CONSOL ENERGY: Faces Suits Over Proposed CNX Gas Tender Offer-------------------------------------------------------------CONSOL Energy Inc. has been named as a defendant in five putative class actions brought by alleged shareholders of CNX Gas challenging the proposed tender offer by the company to acquire all of the shares of CNX Gas common stock that CONSOL Energy does not already own, according to the company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The cases are:

(1) Schurr v. CONSOL Energy and others (No. 2010-2333), filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County, Pennsylvania on March 29, 2010;

(3) Polen v. CONSOL Energy and others (No. 2010-2626), filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County, Pennsylvania on April 12, 2010;

(4) Gaines v. CONSOL Energy and others (No. 5378), filed March 30, 2010 in the Delaware Court of Chancery; and

(5) Hurwitz v. CONSOL Energy and others (NO. 5405), filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery on April 13, 2010.

Other than the Gummel case, the suits also name CNX Gas and certain officers and directors of CONSOL Energy and CNX Gas as defendants.

All five actions generally allege that CONSOL Energy has breached and/or has aided and abetted in the breach of fiduciary duties purportedly owed to CNX Gas public shareholders. Among other things, the actions seek a permanent injunction against or rescission of the proposed tender offer, damages, and attorneys' fees and expenses.

CONSOL Energy Inc. -- http://www.consolenergy.com/-- a high-Btu bituminous coal and natural gas company, is a member of the Standard & Poor's 500 Equity Index and the Fortune 500. At year-end 2009, it had 11 bituminous coal mining complexes in six states and reports proven and probable coal reserves of 4.5 billion tons. It also is a majority owner of CNX Gas, a leading Appalachian gas producer, with proved reserves of more than 1.9 trillion cubic feet.

DOW CHEMICAL: Court Gives Final Approval to Settlement Agreement----------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana gave its final approval to the settlement agreement resolving the litigation with respect to the retirees of Rohm and Haas Company, according to The Dow Chemical Company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

In December 2005, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana issued a decision granting a class of participants in the Rohm and Haas Pension Plan who had retired from Rohm and Haas Company, now a wholly owned subsidiary of the company, and who elected to receive a lump sum benefit from the Rohm and Haas Plan, the right to a cost-of-living adjustment as part of their retirement benefit.

In August 2007, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision, and in March 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the Rohm and Haas Plan's petition to review the Seventh Circuit's decision. The case was returned to the District Court for further proceedings.

In October 2008 and February 2009, the District Court issued rulings that have the effect of including in the class all Rohm and Haas retirees who received a lump sum distribution without a COLA from the Rohm and Haas Plan since January 1976. These rulings are subject to appeal, and the District Court has not yet determined the amount of the COLA benefits that may be due to the class participants. The Rohm and Haas Plan and the plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement which was preliminarily approved by the District Court on Nov. 24, 2009.

In addition to settling the litigation with respect to the Rohm and Haas retirees, the settlement agreement provides for the amendment of the complaint and amendment to the Rohm and Haas Plan to include active employees.

Notices of the proposed settlement were provided to class members, and a hearing was held on March 12, 2010, to determine whether the settlement will be finally approved by the District Court. On April 12, 2010, the District Court issued a final order approving the settlement.

An appeal of the final order by an objector to the settlement has been filed and any additional appeals of the final order must be filed within 30 days of the date of the order.

The Dow Chemical Company's -- http://www.dow.com/-- diversified industry-leading portfolio of specialty chemical, advanced materials, agrosciences and plastics businesses delivers a broad range of technology-based products and solutions to customers in approximately 160 countries and in high growth sectors such as electronics, water, energy, coatings and agriculture. In 2009, Dow had annual sales of $45 billion and employed approximately 52,000 people worldwide. The company's more than 5,000 products are manufactured at 214 sites in 37 countries across the globe.

DYNAMICS RESEARCH: Continues to Defend FLSA Violations Suit-----------------------------------------------------------Dynamics Research Corp. continues to defend a class action employee suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

On June 28, 2005, a class action employee suit was filed alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and certain provisions of Massachusetts General Laws. The plaintiff's claim was for $8 million.

On April 10, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts entered an order granting in part the company's motion to dismiss the suit and to compel compliance with the company's mandatory dispute resolution program, directing that the parties arbitrate the claims, and striking the class actionwaiver which was part of the dispute resolution program.

In the arbitration, the company filed a Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Disposition. The motion was denied and the parties exchanged discovery documents.

No further updates were reported in company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Dynamics Research Corporation -- http://www.drc.com/-- is a provider of engineering, technical, information technology (IT) and management consulting services and solutions to federal and state governments. The company operates in two business segments: Systems and Services, and Metrigraphics.

E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Motion to Dismiss "Freudenberg" Suit Pending---------------------------------------------------------------E*Trade Financial Corporation's motion to dismiss a consolidated amended securities class action complaint captioned Freudenberg v. E*Trade Financial Corporation et al., remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to the company's May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On Oct. 2, 2007, a class action complaint alleging violations of the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company and its then Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, Mitchell H. Caplan and Robert J. Simmons by Larry Freudenberg on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated (Freudenberg Action).

On July 17, 2008, the trial court consolidated this action with four other purported class actions, all of which were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and which were based on the same facts and circumstances.

On Jan. 16, 2009, plaintiffs served their consolidated amended class action complaint in which they also named Dennis Webb, the company's former Capital Markets Division President as a defendant.

Plaintiffs contend, among other things, that the value of the company's stock between April 19, 2006 and Nov. 9, 2007 was artificially inflated because defendants issued materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that the company was experiencing a rise in delinquency rates in its mortgage and home equity portfolios; failed to timely record an impairment on its mortgage and home equity portfolios; materially overvalued its securities portfolio, which included assets backed by mortgages; and based on the foregoing, lacked a reasonable basis for the positive statements made about the Company's earnings and prospects.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages in an amount to be proven at trial, including interest and attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants filed their motion to dismiss on April 2, 2009, and briefing on defendants' motion to dismiss was completed on Aug. 31, 2009.

No further updates were reported in the company's May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Faces Amended Securities Suit in New York------------------------------------------------------------E*Trade Financial Corporation faces an amended securities class action complaint by John W. Oughtred, according to the company's May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On April 2, 2008, a class action complaint alleging violations of the federal securities laws was filed by John W. Oughtred on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company.

Plaintiff contends, among other things, that the company committed various sales practice violations in the sale of certain auction rate securities to investors between April 2, 2003, and Feb. 13, 2008 by allegedly misrepresenting that these securities were highly liquid and safe investments for short term investing.

Defendants filed their pending motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint on Feb. 5, 2009, and briefing on defendants' motion to dismiss was completed on April 15, 2009.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages in an amount to be proven at trial, or, in the alternative, rescission of auction rate securities purchases, plus interest and attorney's fees and costs.

On March 18, 2010, the District Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice. Plaintiff has an opportunity to amend the complaint.

On April 22, 2010, Plaintiff amended their complaint.

E*TRADE Financial Corporation -- http://www.etrade.com-- is a financial services company that provides online brokerage and related products and services primarily to individual retail investors, under the brand "E*TRADE Financial." The company is headquartered at New York, New York.

E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Roling" Suit in Calif.--------------------------------------------------------------E*TRADE Securities LLC continues to defend a class action complaint filed by Joseph Roling on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated.

On Feb. 3, 2010, the class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The lead plaintiff alleges that E*TRADE Securities LLC unlawfully charged and collected certain account activity fees from its customers.

Claimant, on behalf of himself and the putative class, asserts breach of contract, unjust enrichment and violation of California Civil Code Section 1671 and seeks equitable and injunctive relief for alleged illegal, unfair and fraudulent practices under California's Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professional Code Section 17200 et seq.

The plaintiff seeks, among other things, certification of the class action on behalf of alleged similarly situated plaintiffs, unspecified damages and restitution of amounts allegedly wrongfully collected by E*TRADE Securities LLC, attorneys fees and expenses and injunctive relief.

No further updates were reported in E*TRADE Financial Corporation's May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

E*TRADE Financial Corporation -- http://www.etrade.com-- is a financial services company that provides online brokerage and related products and services primarily to individual retail investors, under the brand "E*TRADE Financial." The company is headquartered at New York, New York.

E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Pays Settlement Amount in "Greenberg" Suit-------------------------------------------------------------E*Trade Financial Corp. has paid the settlement amount to the Claims Administrator on March 5, 2010, according to the company's May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. The payment is part of the approved settlement of the class action filed by Nikki Greenberg, et al.

The class-action suit, challenging the company's practice of recording customer telephone calls without their knowledge or consent, was filed on Oct. 11, 2006. It was brought on behalf of all customers or consumers who allegedly made or received telephone calls from E*Trade that were recorded without their knowledge or consent following a telephone call from the plaintiff to the company's Beverly Hills branch on Aug. 8, 2006, that was recorded during a brief period when the company's automated notice system was out of order.

On Feb. 7, 2008, class certification was granted and the class defined to consist of:

-- all persons in California who received telephone calls from E*Trade and whose calls were recorded without their consent within three years of Oct. 11, 2006, and

-- all persons who made calls from California to the company's Beverly Hills branch office on Aug. 8, 2006.

On Oct. 16, 2009, the court granted final approval of the parties' proposed settlement agreement. Objectors to the court's order granting final approval of the parties' settlement agreement filed notices of appeal, which were subsequently dismissed on Jan. 26, 2010.

On Dec. 13, 2005, the class-action lawsuit was commenced against AMR in Washington State Court, Spokane County.

The complaint alleges that AMR billed patients and third party payors for transports it conducted between 1998 and 2005 athigher rates than contractually permitted.

The court has certified a class in this case, but the size and membership of the class has not been determined.

No further updates were reported in the company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Emergency Medical Services Corp. -- http://www.emsc.net/-- is a provider of emergency medical services in the U.S. The company operates its business and markets its services under the AMR and EmCare brands, which represent American Medical Response, Inc. and EmCare Holdings Inc., respectively. AMR is a provider of ambulance services in the U.S. EmCare is a provider of outsourced emergency department staffing and related management services in the U.S. The company offers a range of emergency medical services through its two business segments: AMR and EmCare.

EMERGENCY MEDICAL: AMR Faces Four Wage & Hour Violations Suits--------------------------------------------------------------Four different lawsuits purporting to be class actions have been filed against Emergency Medical Services Corp.'s subsidiary, American Medical Response, Inc. (AMR) and certain subsidiaries in California alleging violations of California wage and hour laws, according to the company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The four lawsuits are:

(1) commenced by Lori Bartoni in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Alameda, on April 16, 2008;

(2) filed by Vaughn Banta in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, on July 8, 2008;

(3) filed by Laura Karapetian in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, on Jan. 22, 2009; and

(4) filed by Melanie Aguilar in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, on March 11, 2010.

The Banta and Karapetian cases have been coordinated with the Bartoni case in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Alameda. At the present time, the courts have not certified classes in any of these cases.

Plaintiffs allege principally that the AMR entities failed to pay overtime charges pursuant to California law, and failed to provide required meal breaks or pay premium compensation for missed meal breaks. Plaintiffs are seeking to certify the classes and are seeking lost wages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other sanctions permitted under California law for violations of wage hour laws.

Emergency Medical Services Corp. -- http://www.emsc.net/-- is a provider of emergency medical services in the U.S. The company operates its business and markets its services under the AMR and EmCare brands, which represent American Medical Response, Inc. and EmCare Holdings Inc., respectively. AMR is a provider of ambulance services in the U.S. EmCare is a provider of outsourced emergency department staffing and related management services in the U.S. The company offers a range of emergency medical services through its two business segments: AMR and EmCare.

EXPERIAN INFO: Sued for Deceptive Marketing of Credit Reports-------------------------------------------------------------Courthouse News Service reports that Experian Information Solutions and Consumerinfo.com dba FreeCreditReport.com deceptively offer a "free" credit report but make customers buy a "credit-monitoring service" to get it, a class action claims in Sussex County Court, N.J.

FACEBOOK INC: Accused in R.I. of Violating Computer Privacy Law---------------------------------------------------------------Alexandria D'Angelo at Courthouse News Service reports that Facebook violated computer privacy law by using data mining "to automatically and without notice capture private information of its members" and post it on unaffiliated websites, a class action claims in Federal Court. The class claims Facebook's new "Instant Personalization" program violated the Stored Communications Act.

The class describes the Instant Personalization program as a "social plug-in" that allows third party websites such as Pandora, Yelp and Microsoft Docs to get Facebook users' personal information.

"Instant Personalization," loaded onto the nation's most widely used social networking site on April 10, broadcasts Facebook users' personal information through the network and posts it to third party websites when users click into the sites through their Facebook pages. When it was released, the tool did not give users the choice to opt in, but automatically signed them up for the application.

Facebook profited from it by mining its members' personal information for advertisers, according to the complaint.

After April 23, Facebook changed its privacy settings "to require an opt-in setting to activate Instant Personalization, however, it Facebook discloses personal information to third party websites through [users'] friends who have not disabled the service," according to the complaint.

Lead plaintiff Derrick Rose claims that "Facebook knowingly, willfully, unlawfully and intentionally without authorization divulged confidential and private information relating to plaintiff and the class' electronic communications," which violated the Stored Communications Act and the User Agreement that he signed when he created his account.

He seeks class damages and an injunction.

A copy of the Complaint in Rose v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-00232 (D. R.I.), is available at:

In Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Company v. Randall and Heather Robertson, the state high court found no merit in the insurer's arguments for reversing the order granting class action status.

The case stems from tornado damage to the Robertsons' property in Atkins, Ark., on Feb. 5, 2008. The Robertsons initially alleged that Farmers Union improperly "paid their personal-property claim and had illegally depreciated the labor portion of their real property claim," according to court documents.

The complaint was later amended without mention of the personal property claim "and filed a class-action complaint on behalf of themselves and similarly situated Arkansans, alleging that Appellant [Farmers Union] had a common practice of depreciating the cost of labor when adjusting real-property damage."

The suit requested judgment for the insurer's "failure to timely and properly pay an insurance claim."

Farmers Union asserted that the Robertson's claims do not meet the requirements of class action status because they are not "typical of the proposed class or that they are adequate class representatives." According to the insurer, the Robertsons "failed to satisfy the typicality requirement because they have a claim for damage to personal property that the class members do not."

The Court rejected that argument, explaining that while the Robertson's initial claim included personal-property damage, the "amended complaints did not raise a claim for personal-property damage. This court has stated with approval the 'widely recognized doctrine that an amended complaint, unless it adopts and incorporates the original complaint, supersedes the original complaint.'"

The high court ultimately agreed with the lower court's finding that "the resolution of the common predominating issues throughout Appellees' and the class members' claims 'in one consolidated class action is superior to litigating hundreds or thousands of individual lawsuits on the same common issues.'"

The action was filed in U.S. District Court, District of Arizona, on Jan. 12, 2009.

The Eller action is a purported national class action defined in the pleadings to include all persons who purchased EquiTrust Life index annuities.

Plaintiffs allege two sub-classes, one for all persons age 65 and older that purchased an EquiTrust Life index annuity contract with a maturity date beyond the annuitant's actuarial life expectancy; and a 17-state multi-state class under various consumer protection and unfair insurance practices statutes.

The Eller case seeks rescission and injunctive relief including restitution and disgorgement of profits on behalf of all class members, compensatory damages, unjust enrichment and punitive damages.

No further updates were reported in FBL Financial Group, Inc.'s May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

FBL Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.fblfinancial.com/-- sells individual life and annuity products principally under the names, Farm Bureau Financial Services and EquiTrust Financial Services. These brand identities are represented by the distribution channels of its subsidiaries, Farm Bureau LifeInsurance Company and EquiTrust Life Insurance Company. As of Dec. 31, 2009, the company's Farm Bureau Life distribution channel consisted of 2,020 agents and agency managers. These agents and agency managers sell its products in the Midwestern and Western sections of the United States. As of Dec. 31, 2009,its EquiTrust Life independent distribution channel consisted of 20,195 independent agents. The company's product segments include Traditional Annuity - Exclusive Distribution (Exclusive Annuity), Traditional Annuity - Independent Distribution (Independent Annuity), Traditional and Universal Life Insurance and Variable.

The complaint asserts a sub-class of purchasers that were age 60 or older at the time of purchase.

Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief on behalf of all class members under California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.; compensatory damages for breach of contract; and punitive damages under a common law cause of action for fraud.

No further updates were reported in FBL Financial Group, Inc.'s May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

FBL Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.fblfinancial.com/-- sells individual life and annuity products principally under the names, Farm Bureau Financial Services and EquiTrust Financial Services. These brand identities are represented by the distribution channels of its subsidiaries, Farm Bureau LifeInsurance Company and EquiTrust Life Insurance Company. As of Dec. 31, 2009, the company's Farm Bureau Life distribution channel consisted of 2,020 agents and agency managers. These agents and agency managers sell its products in the Midwestern and Western sections of the United States. As of Dec. 31, 2009,its EquiTrust Life independent distribution channel consisted of 20,195 independent agents. The company's product segments include Traditional Annuity - Exclusive Distribution (Exclusive Annuity), Traditional Annuity - Independent Distribution (Independent Annuity), Traditional and Universal Life Insurance and Variable.

FEDERAL HOME: Bid to Junk OPERS Securities Suit Still Pending-------------------------------------------------------------A motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the matter Ohio Public Employees Retirement System vs. Freddie Mac, Syron, et al, remains pending, according to the company's May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

This putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against Freddie Mac and certain former officers on Jan. 18, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio alleging that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making "false and misleading statements concerning our business, risk management and the procedures we put into place to protect the company from problems in the mortgage industry."

On April 10, 2008, the court appointed OPERS as lead plaintiff and approved its choice of counsel.

On Sept. 2, 2008, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint, which purportedly asserted claims on behalf of a class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock between Aug. 1, 2006 and Nov. 20, 2007.

The second amended complaint also extends the damages period, but not the class period.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and interest, and reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney and expert fees.

On Nov. 19, 2008, the Court granted FHFA's motion to intervene in its capacity as Conservator.

On April 6, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.

Freddie Mac -- http://www.freddiemac.com/-- is a stockholder- owned corporation established to support homeownership and rental housing. Freddie Mac purchases residential mortgages and mortgage-related securities in the secondary mortgage market, and securitizes them into mortgage-related securities that can be sold to investors. The company purchases single-family and multi-family residential mortgages and mortgage-related securities, which it finances primarily by issuing mortgage-related securities and debt instruments in the capital markets. Freddie Mac finances its purchases primarily by issuing a range of debt instruments in the capital markets. The company operates in three segments: Investments, Single-family Guarantee and Multifamily.

The complaint further alleges that Syron, Cook and Piszel made additional false statements following the offering.

Freddie Mac is not named as a defendant in this lawsuit.

No further updates were reported in Freddie Mac's May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Freddie Mac -- http://www.freddiemac.com/-- is a stockholder- owned corporation established to support homeownership and rental housing. Freddie Mac purchases residential mortgages and mortgage-related securities in the secondary mortgage market, and securitizes them into mortgage-related securities that can be sold to investors. The company purchases single-family and multi-family residential mortgages and mortgage-related securities, which it finances primarily by issuing mortgage-related securities and debt instruments in the capital markets. Freddie Mac finances its purchases primarily by issuing a range of debt instruments in the capital markets. The company operates in three segments: Investments, Single-family Guarantee and Multifamily.

A putative class-action lawsuit was filed against Freddie Mac and certain former officers on Aug. 15, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for alleged violations of federal securities laws purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from Nov. 21, 2007, through Aug. 5, 2008.

The plaintiff claims that defendants made false and misleading statements about Freddie Mac's business that artificially inflated the price of Freddie Mac's common stock, and seeks unspecified damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.

On Jan. 20, 2009, FHFA, the company's Conservator, filed a motion to intervene and stay the proceedings.

On Feb. 6, 2009, the court granted FHFA's motion to intervene.

On May 19, 2009, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint.

On May 19, 2009, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint, purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from Nov. 30, 2007, through Sept. 7, 2008. Freddie Mac filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on Feb. 24, 2010, which motion remains pending.

Freddie Mac -- http://www.freddiemac.com/-- is a stockholder- owned corporation established to support homeownership and rental housing. Freddie Mac purchases residential mortgages and mortgage-related securities in the secondary mortgage market, and securitizes them into mortgage-related securities that can be sold to investors. The company purchases single-family and multi-family residential mortgages and mortgage-related securities, which it finances primarily by issuing mortgage-related securities and debt instruments in the capital markets. Freddie Mac finances its purchases primarily by issuing a range of debt instruments in the capital markets. The company operates in three segments: Investments, Single-family Guarantee and Multifamily.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint on Sept. 30, 2009.

On Jan. 14, 2010, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated action with leave to file an amended complaint on or before March 15, 2010.

On March 15, 2010, plaintiffs filed their amended consolidated complaint against these same defendants with more detailed allegations of federal securities law violations.

Freddie Mac is not named as a defendant in the consolidated lawsuit, but the underwriters previously gave notice to Freddie Mac of their intention to seek full indemnity and contribution under the Underwriting Agreement in this case, including reimbursement of fees and disbursements of their legal counsel.

According to Freddie Mac's May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, Freddie Mac is not named as a defendant in the consolidated lawsuit, but the underwriters previously gave notice to Freddie Mac of their intention to seek full indemnityand contribution under the Underwriting Agreement in this case, including reimbursement of fees and disbursements of their legal counsel.

Freddie Mac -- http://www.freddiemac.com/-- is a stockholder- owned corporation established to support homeownership and rental housing. Freddie Mac purchases residential mortgages and mortgage-related securities in the secondary mortgage market, and securitizes them into mortgage-related securities that can be sold to investors. The company purchases single-family and multi-family residential mortgages and mortgage-related securities, which it finances primarily by issuing mortgage-related securities and debt instruments in the capital markets. Freddie Mac finances its purchases primarily by issuing a range of debt instruments in the capital markets. The company operates in three segments: Investments, Single-family Guarantee and Multifamily.

GOOGLE INC: Third WiFi Snooping Lawsuit Filed in D. Mass. ---------------------------------------------------------Kara Reeder at IT Business Edge reports that Google is facing yet another class-action lawsuit over its admission of Wi-Fi snooping.

Computerworld reports that Galaxy Internet Services, an ISP for homes and businesses in Massachusetts, has filed a class-action lawsuit alleging that Google violated U.S. federal and Massachusetts privacy laws. Galaxy wants Google to be forbidden from destroying the Wi-Fi data it collected and that it be forced to pay damages as determined by a jury.

Earlier this month, an Oregon woman and a Washington man filed a class-action lawsuit against Google over its secret Wi-Fi sniffing. In addition, three men have filed suit against the search giant, alleging that its Street View data gathering violated the Federal Wiretapping Act.

SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Wants Amended Complaint in Calif. Dismissed---------------------------------------------------------------Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc., seeks the dismissal of an amended class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, according to the company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On July 24, 2009, a purported class action complaint captioned Shepardson v. Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc., et al. was filed against the company, its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, its current Chief Financial Officer, its former Chief Financial Officer, and investment banks that underwrote the company's initial public offering, on behalf of two classes of purchasers of its securities.

On Nov. 10, 2009, the District Court appointed lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel, re-captioned the action In re SkilledHealthcare Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, and ordered that lead plaintiffs file an amended class action complaint.

On Jan. 12, 2010, lead plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint against the company, its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, its Chief Operating Officer and President, its current Chief Financial Officer, its former Chief Financial Officer, its largest stockholder and related entities, and a director affiliated with that stockholder.

One purported class consists of all persons other than defendants who purchased the company's Class A common stock pursuant or traceable to its Initial Public Offering. The second purported class consists of all persons other than defendants who purchased the company's Class A common stock from May 14, 2007, through June 9, 2009.

The complaint, which seeks an unspecified amount of damages, including rescissory damages, asserts claims under the federalsecurities laws relating to its June 9, 2009 announcement that the company would restate its financial statements for the period from Jan. 1, 2006, to March 31, 2009, and that the restatement was likely to require cumulative charges against after-tax earnings in the aggregate amount of between $8.0 million and $9.0 million over the affected periods.

The complaint also alleges that the company's registration statement and prospectus, financial statements, and publicstatements about its results of operations contained material false and misleading statements.

Defendants moved to dismiss the amended class action complaint on March 15, 2010.

The motion to dismiss is scheduled to be heard by the District Court on June 21, 2010.

Based in Foothill Ranch, California, Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc. -- http://www.skilledhealthcaregroup.com/-- is a holding company with subsidiary healthcare services companies, which in the aggregate had consolidated annual revenues of nearly $760 million and approximately 14,000 employees as of March 31, 2010. Skilled Healthcare Group and its wholly-owned companies operate long-term care facilities and provide a wide range of post-acute care services, with a strategic emphasis on sub-acute specialty health care. The company operates long-term care facilities in California, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico and Texas, including 78 skilled nursing facilities that offer sub-acute care and rehabilitative and specialty health skilled nursing care, and 22 assisted living facilities that provide room and board and social services. In addition, the company provides physical, occupational and speech therapy in Company-operated facilities and unaffiliated facilities. Furthermore, the Company provides hospice and home health care in Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Montana and New Mexico.

SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend "Bates" Suit in Calif.--------------------------------------------------------------Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc. continues to defend the matter captioned Lavender (Bates) v. Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc. and twenty-three of its companies, according to the company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On May 4, 2006, three plaintiffs filed a complaint against the company in the Superior Court of California, Humboldt County, entitled Lavender (Bates) v. Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc. and twenty-three of its companies.

In the complaint, the plaintiffs allege, among other things, that certain California-based facilities operated by the company's wholly owned operating companies failed to provide an adequate number of qualified personnel to care for their residents and misrepresented the quality of care provided in their facilities.

Plaintiffs allege these failures violated, among other things, the residents' rights, the California Health and Safety Code, the California Business and Professions Code and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

Plaintiffs seek, among other things, restitution of money paid for services allegedly promised to, but not received by, facility residents during the period from Sept. 1, 2003 to the present.

The complaint further sought class certification of in excess of32,000 plaintiffs as well as injunctive relief, punitive damagesand attorneys' fees.

In response to the complaint, the company filed a demurrer. OnNov. 28, 2006, the Humboldt Court denied the demurrer.

On Jan. 31, 2008, the Humboldt Court denied the company's motion for a protective order as to the names and addresses of residents within the facility and on April 7, 2008, the Humboldt Court granted plaintiffs' motion to compel electronic discovery by the company.

On May 27, 2008, plaintiffs' motion for class certification was heard, and the Humboldt Court entered its order granting plaintiffs' motion for class certification on June 19, 2008.

The company subsequently petitioned the California Court ofAppeal, First Appellate District, for a writ and reversal of theorder granting class certification. The Court of Appeal deniedthe Company's writ on Nov. 6, 2008 and the company accordinglyfiled a petition for review with the California Supreme Court.

The order granting class certification accordingly remains inplace, and the action is proceeding as a class action.

Primary professional liability insurance coverage has beenexhausted for the policy year applicable to this case. Theexcess insurance carrier issuing the policy applicable to thiscase has issued its reservation of rights to preserve anassertion of non-coverage for this case due to the lack of anyallegation of injury or harm to the plaintiffs.

Trial in this matter commenced Nov. 30, 2009 and is ongoing.

The Company filed several distinct motions for summary judgment and summary adjudication all of which were denied by the trial court. The company subsequently petitioned the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, for a writ and reversal of the order denying one of the motions for summary adjudication addressing the purported duty to provide 3.2 nursing hours per patient day and all causes of action in Plaintiffs' complaint premised on Health and Safety Code Section 1276.5.

The Court of Appeal denied the company's writ on Feb. 23, 2010, and the company accordingly filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court.

On April 14, 2010, the California Supreme Court denied the company's petition for review.

Plaintiffs have now completed their case in chief for the first phase of the trial and the company has invited its excess carrier to reconsider its coverage position in light of some of the plaintiffs' representations made during the trial.

At the conclusion of Plaintiffs' case in chief for the first phase of the trial, the company believed that Plaintiffs failed to establish sufficient facts to support their claims.

On April 16, 2010 the trial court denied the Company's motions for nonsuit.

The company has begun to present evidence in support of its defense and continues to zealously defend against plaintiffs' claims, but cannot predict the outcome of the claims nor estimate the amount of damages that could be assessed in the event of an adverse outcome, which damages could have a material negative effect on the company's financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

Based in Foothill Ranch, California, Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc. -- http://www.skilledhealthcaregroup.com/-- is a holding company with subsidiary healthcare services companies, which in the aggregate had consolidated annual revenues of nearly $760 million and approximately 14,000 employees as of March 31, 2010. Skilled Healthcare Group and its wholly-owned companies operate long-term care facilities and provide a wide range of post-acute care services, with a strategic emphasis on sub-acute specialty health care. The company operates long-term care facilities in California, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico and Texas, including 78 skilled nursing facilities that offer sub-acute care and rehabilitative and specialty health skilled nursing care, and 22 assisted living facilities that provide room and board and social services. In addition, the company provides physical, occupational and speech therapy in Company-operated facilities and unaffiliated facilities. Furthermore, the Company provides hospice and home health care in Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Montana and New Mexico.

STATE FARM GENERAL: Removes "Ruby" Labor Complaint to N.D. Calif.----------------------------------------------------------------- Tiffany Ruby, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. State Farm General Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 10-498412 (Calif. Super. Ct. San Francisco Cty.), was filed on April 7, 2010. The plaintiff accuses the insurance company of failing to pay employees for all hours worked, failing to provide meal and rest periods, failing to pay minimum wages, failing to pay wages upon termination, failing to timely pay wages during employment, failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and unfair business practices in violation of the Calif. Bus. & Prof. Code.

On the basis of diversity jurisdiction, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company [incorrectly identified as "State Farm General Insurance Company"], on May 25 2010, removed the lawsuit to the Northern District of California, and the Clerk assigned Case No. 10-cv-02252 to the proceeding.

UNITED AGRI-PRODUCTS: Argues for Dismissal of Ill. Atrazine Suit----------------------------------------------------------------Amelia Flood at The Madison County Record reports that a defendant in one of a series of proposed class actions over atrazine's alleged water contamination argued that it has nothing to do with selling the herbicide in Illinois and wants the case against it thrown out.

But plaintiffs, led by Holiday Shores Sanitary District, argued that defendant United Agri-Products Inc. (UAP) can't get around the Illinois case just by claiming its subsidiaries are the ones to sue.

Madison County Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder heard the arguments Wednesday on a 2005 motion to dismiss.

UAP and other makers and distributors of weed killers containing atrazine are fighting six class actions in Madison County as well as a federal class action filed by attorneys Stephen Tillery and Christine Moody.

At the hearing, UAP attorney Kurtis Reeg told Crowder his client should not have been sued at all.

Reeg argued that his client is merely an administrative company that handles payroll, human resources and other daily management duties for its subsidiaries.

He pointed out that UAP does not do business in Illinois, doesn't have employees in the state and that it does not make or sell atrazine products directly.

He told Crowder the case against UAP should be dismissed for a lack of personal jurisdiction.

Tillery countered that UAP's own corporate representative, Mark Tostle, testified in a Feb. 26, 2010 deposition that he worked for UAP and its two subsidiaries, one of which directly deals with atrazine.

Tillery stressed the functions UAP handles for the subsidiaries, arguing they constituted 100 percent control needed for an Illinois court to have jurisdiction.

He told Crowder the courts generally "see right through" arguments like UAP's.

Tillery cited Tostle's deposition statements that although atrazine sales may have been the province of UAP subsidiaries that do sell in Illinois, the decision about the sales arrangements were made by UAP staff based in Colorado where the company is headquartered.

Crowder took the motion under advisement.

In the Madison County suits, Holiday Shores and seven other Illinois municipalities propose to lead a class of water providers alleging atrazine runs off farm fields and contaminates their water supplies.

Tillery's federal suit has nearly identical claims and is led by several water providers in neighboring states including Missouri and Kansas.

Although the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has ruled atrazine is safe in drinking water up to 3 parts per billion, the plaintiffs contend that smaller amounts can cause medical problems in human beings.

In the Madison County suits' first amended complaints, the plaintiffs dropped property damage claims.

The defendants had argued that property-related claims for co-plaintiffs Hillsboro, Mattoon, Fairfield, Litchfield, Flora, Carlinville and Mount Olive, should be spun off from the Holiday Shores suits and returned to their home counties for proceedings.

Crowder denied that move after hearing arguments in late February.

UNITED STATES: D.C. Suit Complains About Parole Guidelines----------------------------------------------------------Courthouse News Service reports that federal prisoners locked up for crimes committed under the District of Columbia Code before March 3, 1985 want the U.S. Parole Commission enjoined from applying parole guidelines that were not in force when they committed their offenses, in a class action in DC Federal Court.

VULCAN MATERIALS: Certification Hearing in Addair Set for August----------------------------------------------------------------The class certification hearing in the matter Addair et al. v. Processing Company, LLC, et al., were Vulcan Materials Company is a defendant, has been scheduled for August 2010, according to the company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The company is a defendant in several cases involving perchloroethylene (perc), which was a product manufactured by the company's former Chemicals business. Perc is a cleaning solvent used in dry cleaning and other industrial applications. The cases involve various allegations of groundwater contamination, or exposure to perc allegedly resulting in personal injury.

One such case is a purported class action case for medical monitoring and personal injury damages pending in the Circuit Court of Wyoming County, West Virginia.

The plaintiffs allege various personal injuries from exposure to perc used in coal sink labs.

Discovery is now complete. The class certification hearing is scheduled for August 2010.

Vulcan Materials Company is the nation's largest producer of construction aggregates, a major producer of asphalt mix and concrete and a leading producer of cement in Florida.

VULCAN MATERIALS: Subsidiary Defends Two Consolidated Complaints----------------------------------------------------------------Vulcan Materials Company's subsidiary, Florida Rock Industries, Inc., remains a defendant in two consolidated complaints pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

A number of class action lawsuits were filed by several ready-mixed concrete producers and construction companies against a number of concrete and cement producers and importers in Florida.

There are now two consolidated complaints:

(1) on behalf of direct independent ready-mixed concrete producers, and

The complaints allege various violations under the federal antitrust laws, including price fixing and market allocations.

No additional details were reported in the company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Vulcan Materials Company is the nation's largest producer of construction aggregates, a major producer of asphalt mix and concrete and a leading producer of cement in Florida.

WELLS FARGO: Sued for Collecting Improper Mortgage Fees -------------------------------------------------------Adam Goodman, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., Case No. 2010-CH-22362 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. May 25, 2010), accuses the retail mortgage lender of wrongfully charging his escrow account a fee for obtaining a copy of his tax bills on his mortgage property, in breach of its contractual and fiduciary obligations. Mr. Goodman says these charges are not allowed by the escrow agreement or by any contract governing his escrow account, constitute wrongful conversion, and also violate Illinois consumer protection laws. Wells Fargo has refused to reimburse Mr. Goodman for the charges.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300.